A comparison of canine decontamination cleansers: Implications for water use, dermal pH, and contaminant reduction
2022
Discepolo, Dakota | Kelley, Russ | Jenkins, Eileen K. | Liang, Stephen Y. | Perry, Erin
Environmental contamination is commonly experienced by working canines deployed in the field. Unfortunately, data regarding safety and efficacy of cleansers recommended for decontamination is lacking. Client-owned canines recruited from the community (n = 43) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: povidone-iodine scrub [60 mL Betadine® 7.5% povidone-iodine surgical scrub (Avrio Health L.P, Stamford, CT)], chlorhexidine scrub [60 mL Nolvasan® 2% chlorohexidine surgical scrub (Zoetis, Kalamazoo, MI)], dish detergent [60 mL Dawn® dish detergent (Proctor & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH)], or water alone (control). A visual score assessing removal of a fluorescent marker (GloGerm, Moab, UT) applied between the shoulder blades was used to rate effectiveness of decontamination. Cleanser effect on canine dermal barrier function was determined by measuring pre- and post-decontamination dermal pH and trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL). Analysis of visual scores was performed using PROC FREQ and Chi Square. Significance was set a priori at 0.05 for all tests. Efficacy of fluorescent marker removal was significantly affected by cleanser (P < 0.0001). Dermal pH was also highly affected by cleanser (P < 0.0001). In contrast, TEWL was unchanged across cleansers (P = 0.2686). Common veterinary cleansers utilized for canine decontamination demonstrate similarity in effectiveness for removal of a simulated contaminant and negative impact on dermal barrier function.
Show more [+] Less [-]AGROVOC Keywords
Bibliographic information
This bibliographic record has been provided by National Agricultural Library